Do Natural Disasters benefit the midwest?

[earthling]

Yes, and my point was that industrial emissions are a small part of the problem, way behind "lifestyle" emissions.

My point is we could probably half lifestyle emissions by half by converting vehicles to natural gas. People are not going to voluntarily change their lifestyles unless compelled by cost or convenience so the NG option works in the near term.

If energy consumption today is say 100 metric whatever units and natural gas emits 50% less CO2 than coal and then energy consumption increases to 200 metric units in the future, you are still putting out as much CO2 as coal. And it will be very surprising if coal/oil will just sit there and do nothing even if we shouldn't use it. India/China is just getting started with growth of modern consumers. We keep building more products that use energy. That doesn't sum up very well.

[earthling]

[ We could cut our CO2 emissions by a huge amount if we simply converted vehicles to natural gas and we could cut deep into our dependency on foriegn oil. It makes much much more sense than electric cars which are not suceeding in the market place.

I agree with you about all electric cars not being worth it but hybrids are more efficient over natural gas vehicles if that stats are right. I drive a hybrid and get double the gas mileage as last car. Natural gas emits only 30% less CO2 than oil based gas per energy output unit (though about 50% less than coal) if I understand the stats right - maybe I don't.. So oil gas/electric hybrid vehicle appears to emit less CO2 than an all natural gas vehicle of same size. Now maybe natural gas/electric hybrids could be worth retrofitting gas stations for. If the logistics of natural gas fuel ecosystem to deploy is greater than oil-based gas, it will likely take longer to replace oil. Energy demands will likely increase anyway and it's hard to imagine that oil/coal production eventually goes away. It might just slow down - my bet is on all resources available being used in the end (not promoting it, just realistically likely).

This is the basis of my premise that we are better off preparing for changes than thinking we can stop the momentum. We could probably reduce here and there certain aspects (like to keep rivers/air clean) but the inevitable net alteration of nature from one form to another will likely increase and energy use goes with that. It's human nature to keep innovating and it appears so far that our innovation to manipulate nature to our needs/desires is _ substantially_ greater than our ability to control its side effects to nature.

Innovation to control weather directly may be worth pursuing more than altering the CO2 output that impacts weather. IE, figuring out how to control the ocean currents just enough to alter weather rather than think we can cut CO2 and other factors enough. Ionizing the atmosphere is another method in experiments, though still questionable if doable. Altering weather will probably be just as much a political/logistical nightmare but would be fascinating if we could do it (for better or worse) even though it could also be used as a weapon. Society in itself is a product of engineering so it wouldn't be surprising if we get to that point some day.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The two largest sectoral sources of carbon emissions in this country are transportation and residential. About half of the carbon released from transportation comes from burning gasoline (exclusive of diesel). About 40% of residential emissions come from heating and cooling.

Not sure where your data is coming from. From the EPA (2009 Data) the numbers for greenhouse gases are:
On a world-wide basis:
Energy Supply 26%
Industry 19%
Forestry 17%
Agriculture 14%
Transportation 13%
Residential & Commercial 8%
Waste & Wastewater 3%

For the USA CO2 emissions:
Electricity 40%
Transportation 31%
Industrial 14%
Residential & Commercial 10%
Other 5%

From other sources:
Top 2 Users of Energy in USA
Industry
Transportation

From EIA, Energy Information Administration, for 2010
Commercial and Industrial Users in the USA use about 50% more electricity than Residental Users.

[pash]

.

[pash]

.

[FangKC]

Hurricane Sandy has shown what can happen to urban areas when the nation is so dependent on the grid and commodities shipped in (like gasoline).

Gasoline is probably the least vulnerable commodity. It's easily shipped and transportable as long as the production and refining locales stay out of harms way. Solar and wind installations are fixed and could have easily been destroyed in any such storm.

Another dynamic folks don't consider is coastal population growth. This is where people want to live and the demographics heighten the impact of coastal storms.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/02/us/coasta ... ?hpt=hp_t2

As we have seen, it doesn't make any difference how much gasoline you already have if there is no electricity to pump it. And if roads are flooded, it becomes harder to transport it in.

New solar panel designs are imbedded in roof shingles and could survive most storms. While some houses would have damage, not all would. Independent power generation, with adequate storage, would mean more people could more easily endure disasters because they wouldn't be as dependent on the grid. It's not just hurricanes. Frequent snow and ice storms also disable whole regions.

While not everyone would have their own ability to generate power, people who own homes could, and that would mean fewer people are in need of help after disasters and could be more self-reliant. This takes the pressure of first responders and FEMA, and resources can be diverted to those that do (people living in apartments in places like NYC and Hoboken). Many big city apartment dwellers could go stay with friends and relatives in their homes if they need, but that's only assuming widespread adoption of self-sufficient power generation where people could survive off the grid.

My aunt and uncle in New Jersey lost electricity, water, and their natural gas after Sandy. They had a generator, but only enough power for the refrigerator and freezer to keep their food from going bad. But after three days, they were out of gas to power the generator. They couldn't get gas because of no electricity to power gas pumps. They were without electricity for four days. Their three adult children in the area still don't have power.

Even if they would have had a natural gas powered generator, they would have lost power when the gas lines were shut off.

I told my uncle to consider getting a propane tank to power a generator as a backup that could get them through a couple of weeks.

My point is that we already have technology to make individual homeowners more self-reliant. We just need to get the cost of installing solar down, and develop better battery storage technology so that people can store enough energy to get through several days when the sun may not be out.

[earthling]

Americans drive two to four times farther each year than do Europeans. This is what I mean by "lifestyle" emissions.

That will be difficult to alter given that European cities do not have as much suburbia and sprawl as America. The US is unfortunately mostly designed for cars. We have far more single family homes than Euro cities. Even NYC/NJ metro (outside Manhattan) has higher % single family homes than outside center of London or any major Euro city. It will take more than changing fuel types or transportation types to make enough impact, and even if we expand to other forms, all available fuel resources will likely be used anyway. If US somehow completely stops using coal, we'll probably continue to export it elsewhere.

The US power demands appear to be flattening. We will reduce energy demands in some areas but then come up with conveniences like Amazon delivery service to offset any progress. Data centers are expected to use 10% of US power in 20 years or so. If the pattern for US energy demand stays flat, we will still continue to be among highest in world.

But forget the US, China and India are and will be the next big energy users, way beyond the US. China is about to add up to a half billion modern consumers in near future (not nearly to percap degree of West but still massive). India is expected to add 300m+ modern consumers by next generation, the size of US. All energy resources available will likely be used in the end.

This shows Asia consumption and they are just starting to kick into gear...
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/201 ... -shockers/

So I'll go back to my original statement... Ignoring climate change is ignorance, thinking we can stop it is naive. We are better off spending resources to prepare for the changes than to try and stop it. But yeah, let's make changes where we can to keep the air/rivers reasonably clean - that will more likely happen through technology than changing habits.

[earthling]

PBS Frontline has a new episode (came out last month) on climate change debate, comprehensive view of both sides of argument...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMTVGBGs_40

[earthling]

The deep winters are causing more people to question 'global warming'. Some are trying to change the message to 'global climate change', others are justifiably saying nature changes anyway in 75K-100K year cycles and others say that humans still do/don't have an impact. Methinks all are not off base.

There may be too much variability to put blame on humans but we are better off to be prepared for change either way, whether humans cause it or not, than ignoring it or thinking we can stop change. Human consumption of energy will increase no matter what (especially boosting in Asia). Whether human impact is enough to 'cause' global climate change is irrelevant and is naive to think we can reduce human impact to put the planet in some kind of steady state that never existed.

We just need to figure out how to adapt to change whatever that is, whether human caused or natural. Keeping rivers/air reasonably clean while adapting to change needs to be the focus, not trying to keep the planet in some idealistic static state.

The coverage on this lately has been all over the place...
https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dIN2r_ ... CD4QqgIwAA

Edit: Good article on apparent global population stability (outside India)..
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... ion-growth

The population may stabilize but the conversion of massive peasant/minimal consumer population to modern consumers using energy will significantly increase in Asia and probably eventually in Africa. Doesn't seem realistic we can slow down energy usage or fossil fuels even with alternatives. The alternatives might become practical supplements someday, but would be surprising if enough to stop using fossil fuels.

[phuqueue]

Only an idiot thinks that cold winter = no global warming. Nature isn't changing in a 75k-100k year cycle, it's changing in 75-100 years, and if humans are the cause, that's absolutely relevant -- if we're causing climate change, we can stop causing climate change (or at the very least, slow our pace of climate change). All this "we don't know if humans are causing it," "we're powerless to fix it," BS is just preemptive justification for the shithole planet you'll pass down to your children, and their children, and theirs, etc. If we are powerless, it's because there are too many people out there who are just like you, steadfastly refusing to accept responsibility. You conclude that it's impossible and use that as your excuse not to bother, and a self-fulfilling prophesy is born.

[grovester]

I was hoping I somehow misread his post.

[earthling]

^yeah, I think he thought I'm taking an anti-human impact or anti-climate change stance, which I'm not. We definitely are impacting nature and change is happening - it's just hard to directly measure impact as nature is another variable. I don't find it acceptable we cut down forests for 'progress', just observing that is what is happening.

phuqueue, I'm just speaking as a detached anthro-observer, not with a pro/anti global change position. But you go for it. Humans will indeed and unfortunately continue to alter nature at a faster rate than they can restore it. Always has been that way, ever since we've started farming. Perhaps the only way to get back to a purely natural state of earthly changes is for humans to reduce to below 1B population and go back to hunting/gathering.

Fine to be hopeful about some kind of panacea for all eco issues but just not very realistic given modern consumer growth rate in Asia, and probably Africa after Asia is tapped out. In the meantime, let's keep the rivers/air reasonably clean, do some conservation of resource when possible yet adapt to the upcoming changes - that's more realistic.

What do you propose to keep planet in static state as Asia grows modern consumers at an exponential rate compared to the West?

[grovester]

I was referring to yours, "Methinks all are not off base."

[earthling]

Yeah, many opposing views have some valid points on all sides.

Apparently some don't realize the huge rate Asia consumerism is growing. They have grown modern consumers in last couple decades at faster rate than America did in 200 years. IE, it took over 100 years for US to reach using 500 million tons of coal per year. Asia jumped by nearly 1000 million tons/year in just last 10 years (is now over 2500), huge exponential growth even though they are also using every alternative resource they can (some of those also negatively impacting nature). And Asia is really just getting started. Another 500M or so modern consumers are coming in next generation or three as peasants/farmers who never had power become modernized. And they will buy products that alter nature at a faster rate than we can restore it.

The anti-global change people are unfortunately ignoring the impact (or maybe think it's only natural), the pro-global warming activists seem to think we can stop it. Somewhere in between is... manage what you can (clean air/rivers) and prepare for the changes whether nature or human made. We've been impacting nature at least since farming started about 13K years ago.

[aknowledgeableperson]

In the past there have been periodic warmings and coolings of the earth. Think of the various Ice Ages and the time(s) Greenland was green and Iceland wasn't iceland. Those changes happened for whatever reason and the last that I heard mankind wasn't responsible for those global changes. Recently as 40 or so years ago there was the fear that we were entering a period of global cooling. Not saying that mankind now doesn't have an effect on our global change but can anyone say with certainty how much we are affecting this current change?

[chaglang]

In the past there have been periodic warmings and coolings of the earth. Think of the various Ice Ages and the time(s) Greenland was green and Iceland wasn't iceland. Those changes happened for whatever reason and the last that I heard mankind wasn't responsible for those global changes. Recently as 40 or so years ago there was the fear that we were entering a period of global cooling. Not saying that mankind now doesn't have an effect on our global change but can anyone say with certainty how much we are affecting this current change?

If we are in agreement that mankind is causing the change, trying to parse how much is directly attributable to humans seems like an unnecessary step. But I feel confident that there is a reputable scientist somewhere who has addressed this.

[aknowledgeableperson]

"If we are in agreement that mankind is causing the change,"

That sounds like mankind is solely responsible for the change. I would have it say "is causing SOME of the change."

How much of that change to be determined. If mankind is causing a major portion of that change, or its acceleration, that is one thing. But if mankind is only playing a small portion of the change then the change is going to happen no matter what, it is just of matter of timing.

[bobbyhawks]

"If we are in agreement that mankind is causing the change,"

That sounds like mankind is solely responsible for the change. I would have it say "is causing SOME of the change."

How much of that change to be determined. If mankind is causing a major portion of that change, or its acceleration, that is one thing. But if mankind is only playing a small portion of the change then the change is going to happen no matter what, it is just of matter of timing.

Nevermind eating. We are all going to perish in the end. It is just a matter of timing.

People used to feel a need for stewardship of the land. Now, there is some dystopian disdain for what we can't dominate and control. I guess that battle has always been around, but the defeatist arguments of "nature is too big to control" and "we should be able to take what we want" are as popular as ever. Many of the great conservationists in history have been "conservatives" (imagine that). It is unfortunate that a preference for economic gain has supplanted a preference for a healthier environment for future generations and an untarnished outdoors as millions of years, or the creator, or whatever, provided for us.

It is quite clear that, left to their own devices, major corporations lose a sense of morality, and shareholders dictate that quarterly profitability is more important than the seemingly imaginary pollution coming from said profits. I think that most CEOs are actually not bad people at all, and they actually care about minimizing their impact on the earth, but there is really little room to maneuver when you are beholden to a public trust, that isn't the public at all but faceless investors in your company's future. People like to complain about regulation, but there are many many incredibly impactful, no brainer things that we do today that would not be done without recent (in the last 20 years) regulation. If you are unsure of our impact on the planet, wouldn't you rather err on the side of being too careful? It isn't like we can up and move.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I am not saying "do nothing". Just saying our actions may have little to do with happens in the long run, or even the short run. As I said before it wasn't long ago people were concerned about the earth cooling down, now the concern is the earth is heating up. What will be the concerns 40 years from now? Especially if these changes are more due to Mother Nature than mankind.

[bobbyhawks]

I am not saying "do nothing". Just saying our actions may have little to do with happens in the long run, or even the short run. As I said before it wasn't long ago people were concerned about the earth cooling down, now the concern is the earth is heating up. What will be the concerns 40 years from now? Especially if these changes are more due to Mother Nature than mankind.

Sorry, but I can't stand it when people use the excuse of "we can't possibly know for sure" to explain why inaction is the best course of action. By that rationale, you should ignore all health studies because some of them have contradicted one another over the years. Maybe the overwhelming majority of studies say you shouldn't eat too much of a certain type of food, but what will science say 40 years from now? By this logic, the answer is to keep eating fast food until we either die or can see what 40 years of fast food did to us.